“The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.”

=

Arie de Geus – Dutch business strategist <and assumed pot smoker because he is dutch>

———–

“You do not merely want to be considered the best of the best. You want to be the only ones who do what you do.”

–

Jerry Garcia

Grateful Dead lead singer <and assumed pot smoker because he was the lead singer of the Grateful Dead>

——–

I speak with a lot of business owners. And I can often discern the best of the best with one word <or the words surrounding this one word>.

Unique.

Unique makes my bullshitometer go off. Now. I assume there actually have to be some unique products out there in this wide world of ours because over 500,000 patents are filed every year in the good ole USofA. That said. I admit that I have not run across a whole shitload of these unique products/services in my career even though I have met my foir share of patent owners.

Yes. Having this unique conversation with a patent owner excruciatingly painful. They keep saying “I have a patent therefore it is unique”and you keep saying “yes, sure, and the unique benefit to the buyer is ???”andyou often find that this conversation is a deadly doom loop with no conclusion but frustration.

I imagine the real point is that everyone wants to be the best at whatever it is they elect to do the best. Everyone would like to be the only ones who do what you do <assuming what you do is actually of some value to people>. Everyone wants their business to be ‘unique’ in some form or fashion. And, if you try hard enough, I imagine every business can be ‘unique’ at something. I also imagine if you try hard enough you can learn to dance on the head of a pin.

Regardless, the point of me writing this is that I believe somewhere along the way something got lost.

What do I mean? Well. Since the beginning of time (in marketingese) the concept of unique has been important but I believe it was Ted Bates who simplified <dumbed it down> for the rest of the world to grasp in a usable form by developing what he, and his advertising agency, called the USP <the unique selling proposition>.

Excellent idea. Dumbed a great idea down for anyone and everyone to use. Unfortunately it has all gone wrong since then.

The concept was unique “proposition” not “unique” <all by itself>. Their point was … well … just that simple … proposing to people some kind of proposition that was meaningful and seemingly unique <at minimum creating a perception of uniqueness>.

Please note the nuance. You need not actually be unique in actuality but rather you simply needed to be able to tell people you were unique in some form or fashion. The concept implied how you told your proposition was as important as the product-service proposition itself. The brilliance in the concept is that it recognizes most products and services are not truly unique, however, that didn’t mean you could explain your product-service in a way that wasn’t unique (from a selling perspective).

And here is where it all went awry … in our world of:

(a) a lack of desire to use someone else’s idea, even if it is a great idea, and

(b) the belief, the theory, we should be simplifying even the simplified <oreven the most dumbed down> whereby we lose the nuance

Ultimately … the ‘experts’ started focusing solely on the ‘unique.’ I envision the conversation went something along these lines … “okay, let me simplify this because it is pretty simply … what makes you unique? Answer that and we can get started.”

Well. Here is the deal. A unique selling proposition is rarely a simple process or outcome and discerning what is truly meaningfully unique is rarely simple.

The point? There is a big difference between “what is your unique selling proposition?” and “what makes you unique?” Both can be valuable discussions, but they are not the same discussions.

I believe the problem is that somewhere along the way marketing, advertising, brand people forgot the nuanced selling proposition concept and simply focused on some (mostly) unattainable facet – unique. And therein lies the bigger problem. Identifying the false unique. Because it is inherent nature (at least in the business world) to find what you seek. If I am told I must find something unique than, dammit, I am sure gonna find something unique … even if I have to quasi make it up.

However, fooling yourself does not mean fooling others (although it is a common trap) in fact consumers/buyers are rarely fooled — and if they are … just once.

Therefore ‘unique’ is one of my trap, or test, words in a business discussion. It forces some brutal honesty into a discussion which can set the platform for the type of business relationship you will have.

Be forewarned <part 1> … many providers of products and/or services misconstrue what is unique. Service or ‘my people’ are not unique. Well. They are to your company but they aren’t in any discernible way to the outside world. Generalizing … those are features of your company … of any company for that matter … therefore to be truly unique it would have to translate into some discernible benefit <by ‘discernible’ I mean recognizable to the human eye or the average bear>.

Be forewarned <part 2> … many providers of products and/or services lie to themselves in this discussion but in my experience it is mostly ‘white lie’ in that they are truly seeking a real distinctness. To be fair, I also admit that I like it when a company has some vision of grandeur <even if it is slightly delusional>. I find far too many companies do not aim high enough.

In the end, the company’s attitude on ‘unique’ may be slightly aggravating in a discussion, but it is mostly harmless.

The harming of a Profession.

It is the other side of the table that is what I find harmful and actually quite disappointing. It is the groups of professionals who agree to the white lie, maybe facilitate or encourage the white lie <delusions> or, at the worst, are oblivious to the white lie. There are far too many marketing & advertising professionals out there in the business world today who are abusing or are simply oblivious to the reality of unique <the reality thereof as well as the nuance of positioning in a unique way>. As professionals we should be able to discern between a real uniqueness and a created <perception> uniqueness and should be able to assist a company in understanding it.

Not enough marketing/advertising/branding professionals do. Regardless of that last mini-rant the best example I have seen in my career of a company who understands this nuance between USP and Unique is Proctor and Gamble.

For good or bad (like them or dislike them) they constantly, relentlessly, seek a unique formula, unique product, unique benefit or simply a unique product – thru innovation.

But that is simply a vision and focus. They have the smarts enough so that in lieu of actually having one, i.e., they fully recognize when they don’t have one, they are masters at being distinct, i.e., “I may not be truly unique but there will be no doubt what benefit I provide and the value to it.” And truth be told … that last description, being distinct, is almost unique in itself in today’s garbled & complex for the sake of being complex marketing world. P&G wins simply thru focus and clarity (being distinct) … sometimes thru a real uniqueness and sometimes thru creating a perceived uniqueness.

Smart company those P&G folk.

Now, conversely, oddly enough, the worst at this whole uniqueness thing is maybe Apple. Yeah. Apple. They are solely focused on “unique features” (not benefits). By the way … that is bad as a long term strategy.

Albeit they are an engineering company and not a marketing one, which explains the focus, but making yourself unique thru features means that your sole vision is to <and forever> constantly make your own features obsolete. Because the moment you don’t make yourself obsolete you are no longer ‘unique’ but rather a commodity.

It is a fine line and a dangerously tenuous line. Personally I believe Apple is doomed for eventual failure (albeit if there was ever an industry that could exist on features it would be technology) because all they care about is developing features and marketing the features. But, hey, that’s me.

Ok. Back to unique.

I fully understand everyone wants to be the best at something <which is their uniqueness>.

I fully understand that there are truly some widgets with some meaningful describable benefits that are unique.

I fully understand that what most people are construing as ‘unique’ these days is meaningless drivel. At its worst it is simply mental masturbation.

I fully understand that there are also a lot of missed opportunities for good meaningful “unique selling propositions’ floating out there in the business universe simply because many people just don’t have it on their radar as a meaningful objective.

On that last thought, positioning <using words to create a perception of uniqueness> is valuable and an opportunity. It is not ‘lying’ to the public to create sales.In fact I would argue it is smart and a reflection of your only true competitive advantage … the ability to learn faster than your competition.

Why? Uniqueness is NEVER alone. Standing beside it hugging it closely is someone called “Benefit.” They are inextricably attached as companions for life. And as you learn more about what the buyer of your product really wants <that Benefit person> your ‘uniqueness’ may actually change … radically or nominally … it doesn’t matter. It may change to meet the needs & wants of the buyer.

Let me close by combining Jerry’s thought and Arie’s thought … and, no, I am not going to suggest you have to smoke pot in order to think your way through all of this …

– being the best, or the only one to do something, is irrelevant if it has no value or benefit to others

– unique is rare and often fleeting

However, adaptable ‘best’ and adaptable ‘uniqueness’ is neither fleeting nor useless and if sustained will maintain market leadership <although it is extremely difficult to sustain>. And the key to those is to be to be the only fastest learner in your category. Easy? No. But, remember, business is often not lived best gently.

Heck. If you do focus on being the only fastest learner in your category you may actually not only have a unique selling proposition but a unique product/service to offer.

I finished by saying that it struck me that all the ethical systems I was discussing were after the fact.

That is, that people act as they are disposed to, but they like to feel afterwards that they were right and so they invent systems that approve of their dispositions.”

—–

Alexei Panshin

============

“Christmas is like candy; it slowly melts in your mouth sweetening every taste bud, making you wish it could last forever.”

–

Richelle E. Goodrich

====

Delighting the customer. Creating ‘happy moments.’ In the grander discussion of creating positive experiences in business, usually part of some misguided customer centric thinking, we seem to gravitate toward “special moments” in which we elevate the appropriate people’s happiness to a level in which they can actually recognize whatever happened was good.

We forget happiness is actually a Life formula in that we tend to make Life a zero sum game in experiential moments over the long haul. In other words. We naturally temper our happiness highs and seek to do things to actively fill up any emptiness a ad moment may have created.

This formula leads me to the post-happiness event let down. Someone once called this “happiness hangovers.”

I imagine any of us in the business world have felt this after a big meeting or some big trade show or some big thing we have prepared for and had some element of ‘showtime.’

That’s the same kind of funk we fall into after a holiday.

There are a couple of reasons this happens. One scientific and one mental.

Science.

The dopamine let down. Scientifically we juice ourselves up with dopamine in order to ‘meet the moment.’ Think of this as the feeling you get every time the email notification on your phone goes off… but every 15 seconds for almost 12 hours straight. Each ‘email has arrived’ notification sends a quick dose of dopamine to the brain, we get jolted <love the high> and then immediately receive another. When we are focused on this specific goal we get the rush of dopamine flowing through our brain and once the goal is achieved your body naturally reduces the levels of dopamine.

The body re-balances itself.

The dopamine high goes from high then to low. Eventually it re-calibrates to something finally normal <assuming there is something normal>.

Bottom line result? We feel bummed. We feel drained. That is the happiness let down scientifically.

Mental.

The positive feelings let down. According to psychologist Gary Stollak, psychology professor, most people have a “happiness set point.” Let’s call that a “5” on the self happiness meter.

Therefore when we get up for something and it concludes satisfactorily we rise to a high. Our happiness meter goes to 10 <maybe 11 if you are a Spinal Tap fan>.

Unfortunately your happiness meter balances out. That is partially why your happiest highs are often followed by depressed lows. The worst part of this aspect is what we fill the empty space, where that happiness used to hang out in & has now exited <the 11 to 2 gap>, with. We fill it with doubts, questions, regrets, what ifs, whatever else we could add in that diminishes the true happiness and high. Mentally it’s almost like we cannot accept the happiness was so good, so high, so as soon a the high itself is over we begin to look for imperfections & flaws with which to suggest “well, maybe it wasn’t that high.”

Bottom line result? We go high, we go low and, hopefully, normalize. That is the mental happiness let down.

Regardless.

My point in business and creating positive experiences is that it is impossible to always be high therefore there will inevitably be a low and you should seek to reset, or resettle, as quickly as possible. Effective resetting maximizes the feelings of the high and minimizes the low experiences.

This is hard because highs are, well, high and the aftermath is so anti-climactic versus the moment itself we tend to try and fill the space with stuff associated with the event trying to drag it out for as long as we can in order to put off the bad stuff I already pointed out.

It is a purposeful attempt to address the fact we continuously try to invent things that approve of their dispositions. We hate to let it go even though our body is telling us we should. This usually occurs with the last lasting experience, therefore, the letdown. And maybe that is what hurts us the most. Our bodies have left it behind and yet we continue to try and stuff our body with the trappings of what was.

Happiness let down. We all experience it. I imagine the question is – is it really bad for us to do it?

Well.

Research has linked the let-down of perceived stress with an increase in flare-ups of pain and other ailments. One study found that people experience more panic attacks on weekends, and a 2015 study from Taiwan found that holidays and Sundays have more emergency room admissions for peptic ulcers than weekdays do. A 2014 study showed migraine sufferers, in times of stress, didn’t impact migraine occurrence … but a decline in their perceived stress from one evening entry to the next entry was associated with increased migraine onset over the following six to 18 hours<they called this a “let-down headache”>

All that said. Once something is done it is never really completely gone and we deal with the ‘let down effect.’ And while we hang on relentlessly to the trappings even though the event is done and gone at least now you know there are real scientific and behind we are so silly.

Look.

While I have written about the fallacy behind “manufacturing happiness’ or the whole idea of ‘purposefully creating happiness’ I do tend to believe you can affect the degrees of happiness. It certainly helps if your happiness is more likely dependent upon some realistic expectations or maybe viewing the little moments within the larger grind that is known as Life instead of seeking some larger more grand utopian vision of happiness and big events to define happiness.

Let’s say that of now. This is where I end. Business has to manage the discrete moments of now in order to maximize happiness.

There is no code or formula for this. But I can almost guarantee if you acknowledge happiness hangover or happiness let down you will most likely end up doing something that helps.

“Hell of a thing to have to experience, hell of a thing to have to see, to be reminded you’re a human being and all it meant to be one.”

―

Dean Koontz

======================

Unfortunately, credibility & projecting are inextricably intertwined.

I say that because every time we walk in somewhere someone else is projecting what they think about you – even your credibility.

Yup. We see, we think about what we see through our own eyes and project a belief. We hear, we filter the words through our own experiences and how we felt about those experiences … and project a belief. To be fair, projecting, in general, just makes life easier for us and certainly creates some efficiency.

Now. It doesn’t guarantee accuracy but it offers us all those gosh darn time benefits so, what the hell, who cares if we are right or accurate – we saved time.

Obviously this affects anyone who is seeking some credibility because the biggest issue with regard to projecting is most likely the fact most of us confuse ‘informing’ <the information a person actually provides us> and ‘judging’ which is more about responding by how we are affected by that information.

In other words.

We ignore most of the information we actually receive <or it gets blocked by our existing perceptions and beliefs> and just end up judging based on the few things we let thru to inform us which we then ‘bolt on’ to all the shit we already “know.” This means if someone is actually credible but doesn’t look credible <or sound credible fast> you run the risk of being slotted somewhere below your actual credibility status.

Now.

99% of us, shit, 99% of the people reading this will say “oh, not me … but I see people do it all the time.” Uhm. But we all do it. It’s pretty easy to do it in a world where we seemingly know so much information which inevitably builds a sense of ‘personal wisdom’ which encourages us to actually believe it is never us who is projecting <just ‘other people’>.

Which brings me back to credibility.

This means all of us, people & a business, are always in the business of negotiating their credibility. I say that knowing, in business, credibility may be one of the most valuable things you can have.

It opens doors to opportunities, sharing ideas and even closing a deal. That said. While the greater world may be faced with a skepticism <in believing anything> crisis, the business world is chockfull of skeptics with regard to credibility.

Well. Let me take that back. On occasion your credibility can actually reside on a razor thin proof point.

A degree from a great school <as if no one finishes at the bottom of a class>.

A job at a world renowned company <as if you couldn’t have actually sucked at that job>.

A nifty title at some recognizable company <as if you had actually earned it>.

This is where I share negotiating credibility from a personal perspective. I don’t interview often but when I do they always seem slightly odd in that I spend more time negotiating my credibility than I do what I have to offer.

Let me use 2 agency interviews for a director of strategy position as examples. Full disclosure. I don’t think either discussion went particularly well. Okay, but not great.

Strategy just seems like breathing to me and the weird thing is I am pretty good at uncovering meaningful <see “relevant” in a definition somewhere> insights and isolating a strategy that not only generates results but is open enough to allow some creative output & thinking to deliver that insight.

(note: other people have told me I am good at this so it isn’t like I stare in the mirror and go “what a handsome man you are” .. although I am tempted to try that upon occasion without laughing as an exercise)

I don’t have a traditional account planning background therefore my strategies tend to be less esoteric and more practical. I hate gobbledygook (that’s another word for bullshit) and kind of think developing a strategy is a complex challenge but in the end all about some version of simplicity. Oh. Simplicity just ain’t easy to explain.

Anyway.

I believe developing a strategy is very straightforward (or how you go about doing it). What makes it complex to explain is that almost every strategy development challenge is different.

And I think that hurts me in some discussions because some traditional account planner (I use the words traditional loosely) has some high falutin’ process and a ton of strategy documents highlighting a ton of sometimes concise strategy statements (sometimes meaningless) to showcase.

They look quite credible.

And here is the thing. It is kind of a numbers game. If you pony up enough of these account planner type strategy statement things sooner or later you show one the other person kind of understands and you get to talk about it.

I do not have that “consistent one strategy statement” philosophy? Several reasons.

The process I have stored in my pea like brain is very very consistent (but no one really wants to talk about the process) but the output (which everyone wants to talk about) is very very inconsistent (and that is something philosophically I believe is correct).

The process I use to get to the varied output is very simple and straightforward (because it is simply a logical way to tear apart things to assess what it is you really need to do).

The output from that consistent process construct is varied.

That doesn’t look quite as credible.

Look.

I started my career on P&G brand work so I am steeped in that P&G formulaic positioning statement belief. Oh. And because I worked at JWT I am steeped in a strong methodical strategic thinking process (although I was there long enough that our “output statement” changed a number of times as we shifted to whatever the strategic process idea du jour was). Oh. And because I am a student of the industry I am steeped in Bates’ infamous “USP” (a hard-headed insistence on judging a product by what it does, not by how good it looks, a Unique Selling Proposition).

Oh. Maybe that’s the problem. I don’t have one tried & true output I stick with (probably because what I realized was consistency of process dictated that the output may vary depending on the business challenge or situation).

Having worked at a variety of agencies, consulted, as well as evaluated a variety of consulting & research companies strategy output, not only does everyone have a different process (and while some of the differences are slight they are different) but everyone also has a different “output” form. And I am flexible enough to not worry about those things and focus on what needs to get done.

Credibility often resides in a consistent output form <because inconsistent look like you make it up each time>. I guess the difficulty I have with that is sometimes it is like putting a square peg in a round hole depending on what the challenge was and what the solution was.

I share that to showcase that negotiating credibility, even if you have gobs of experience, is difficult.

Lastly <because I am using an interview discussion>. Talking about strategy and strategy thinking and credibility can get weird at times. I think regardless of your particular skill you get to a point in your experience when it becomes tough to explain what is so simple to you. Yup. It has become just “what you do” and not “something you have to think about doing.” To be clear. This isn’t about having earned some respect because of past experience.

Anyway, what I mean is, for example, assessing research. At a point in my type of career experience you kind of have to know how to interpret research. Not implement a methodology (although we all certainly understand the basics and can probably write and develop basic methodologies) but certainly to review what someone else has completed and interpret the information. We all know how to do it in varying degrees. Therefore, I admit, I don’t know what to say when someone asks me “can you interpret research” other than “yes” – which is an obvious “F grade” answer. Maybe worse would be if I said “gosh, I don’t think I could have gotten to where I got to in my career without knowing how to do it.”

By this time I have looked at so many frickin’ tracking studies, omnibus studies, segmentation studies, sales tracking information, MRI computer runs, focus group write-ups, A&U studies, whatever … I think I can pick out how many rum drinkers in multi person households own tricycles for god’s sake (which I actually did by mistake when I worked on Mount Gay rum).

In fact, that may be the issue. Going back to the basics in a professional credibility discussion when you have done so many things you feel like you don’t have to explain it. No. that’s not it. It’s just I don’t know how to talk about it without actually doing it. It’s like talking about breathing. How do you breathe? Shit. I don’t know. I don’t think about it but I sure am good at it.

As for the background credibility discussion (once again this isn’t about respect it is more “belief in what someone can do without having to explain some things”) I guess in my sports interest warped mind I see it as:

“Hey, I have batted .320 in the national league for 8 straight years. Sure one year I led the league in home runs and another I led the league in doubles and one season I had a boatload of singles and had a huge on base percentage but basically year in and year out I bat .320. So. Even though I am talking to you about playing a season in the American league and I have never batted against American league pitchers what makes you think I won’t bat around .320 again? I don’t know if I will lead the league in home runs or doubles but I can pretty much guarantee I will bate .320. In fact let’s assume if you need home runs I have the ability to do so and maybe we don’t need to talk about how I hit home runs instead of doubles. So why do keep asking me about how I hit? What is my philosophy at the plate? Shouldn’t we be talking about if I fit into the team chemistry and am I the right guy who can hit .320 for your lineup?”

Anyway.

Whether we like it or not we all have to negotiate our credibility on occasion. And it pays to remember that no matter what attitude or perception YOU think you are projecting the other people are judging YOU thru projecting. Unless you are in their head you cannot know where they landed. Therefore, the negotiation begins.

I used the interview to show that you need to provide some heuristic like cues to establish the foundations for credibility because without that consistent “ok, this will be in the game” there is no underpinning for anything else.

That said. To be clear. Negotiating credibility sucks. So does projecting but you can’t change that so you just have to suck it up and negotiate your own credibility.

“To describe my mother would be to write about a hurricane in its perfect power.”

Maya Angelou

——————————–

Well.

It’s almost a little strange in that when I look back at the over 2200 posts I have written I have written only twice for mother’s day. It’s strange because I have the utmost respect for mothers <and women in general>.

All I can offer on Mother’s Day are some thoughts and perspective.

I am not a father. I have managed individuals, groups, departments, companies as well as <tried> to coordinate the activity of multiple companies at the same time within a specific vision.

Even on my most difficult day … I hesitate to suggest I had a tougher job than a mother. Shit. I don’t hesitate … I know I didn’t have a tougher job.

While I envision the rewards of being a mother probably offers heights I can only imagine … the difficulties & challenges are seemingly relentless and unforgiving. In fact, in comparison, business is extremely forgiving. Mistakes are within moments and if you don’t dwell on them they can always <always> be bridged into someplace better <please note that I do believe the only time in business you truly get screwed is if you stop when a mistake happens … if you ‘keep going once in hell’ you will get out>.

Motherhood is strewn with ‘life mines’ and responsibilities. Where moments are not just moments … but rather epic within their seeming minutiae. Some mistakes offer no bridges to someplace better. I say this because so often men, or maybe people with ‘stress related careers,’ flippantly make comparisons to their lives and ‘mothers.’

It is a silly comparison.

We in business are business managers. We are in the business management business <of which we can certainly impact lives but inevitably we manage businesses>.

Mothers are Life managers. Mothers are in the Life management business.

Period.

The decisions they make impact lives. In fact. They are builders. They build lives. Suffice it to say, and I will say this next thought as a quasi-workaholic who typically defines life thru my work, Life is more important than any business. As a corollary, building a Life is exponentially of more value than building a business.

Regardless.

When I think of mothers I always think about something I heard one of my favorite mothers <wife of one of my best friends> say to her daughter during an argument/discussion <whatever it is called that a mother and a tween have between each other> as I sat in their kitchen eavesdropping:

Daughter:

“… but I am sure you & dad did it.”

Mom:

“… you will have to ask your dad about what he did … but let me tell you what I believe … I made my mistakes … and you will make your own … but know this … I want you to be better than I was and, ultimately, than I am.”

Personally, I believe all children should hear that they won’t simply be as good as someone, even their own parents, but something better. Or at least that is the goal, or wish, for them. Oh. And ‘better’ can be anything or any aspect.

Mothers are builders.

They build by telling you to drink more water and eat vegetables.

They build by listening even when they are so tired they don’t want to listen.

They build by saying ‘no’ <yes … even a negative can be a positive>.

They build by saying ‘yes’ <it is a little push to go and do>.

They build by showing hope <if they can do it then it is possible>

They build something better than anything that already exists.

They are architects of fate.

In the end.

They are builders. Architects of fate as one of my favorite poems written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow suggests.

Mothers … “… the structures that we raise in Time with materials filled … our to-days and yesterdays are the blocks with which we build … to truly shape and fashion these <people that we build> …”

We are the structures they raise.

Happy mother’s day to our ‘architects of fate’ … these invaluable builders of ours.

“I knew I wasn’t the best and that I probably never would be. I was always competing, and I did all right, but I was never number one. I knew I wasn’t the best singer but I knew I didn’t have to be the best. My intense compulsion to write and sing my songs along with my persistence and dedication would carry me when I got bogged down in doubt and fear. And my imperfections would distinguish me. However they tortured me sometimes, my imperfections were what made me unique.”

======

From Juliana Hatfield biography “When I grow Up”

————————-

This is about self reflection, self awareness and aspects of growing up <although I think a lot of people could use some of these learnings>.

The opening quote is about as thoughtful a ‘growing up’ thought as anyone could have. Yet. It almost seems un-American <’I knew I wasn’t the best’> while at the same time an excellent recognition of ‘I didn’t have to be the best.’

Whew. I wish we taught this more often. To kids, to employees, heck, to people in general. Competing is the name of the game. Only one can be the best. There is only one number one <hence its name>. So that one thought, ‘I can be successful and not have to be the best’, is fabulous.

In addition.

As we ‘compete’ in Life I imagine everyone is tortured in some way by our own imperfections but if we take a moment we can revel in those same imperfections as the things that make us unique. Interestingly, we can often be tortured by both things — uniqueness and imperfections. So often we want to be ‘like others’ despite not wanting to be like everyone else. Yikes. Now if there isn’t a paradox in life I don’t know what is.

Regardless.

Standing out in any way can be painful <at its worst> and a burden <at almost all times>. The sooner we can accept that <and hopefully teach our kids this> the sooner you accept the burden and move on.

Trite thought about individual imperfections/uniqueness, but, it is what it is <they are what they are>.

You can either invest a shitload of energy wishing it was something else or invest the energy being ‘persistent and dedicated’ toward something so you don’t get bogged down.

Recognition, self-awareness, is also a glimpse of the fact you sacrifice some aspects of ‘growing up’ when you put some blinders on professionally. In other words, your career becomes – or dominates – your life and other things inevitably get sacrificed.

Along this self awareness path we have to make some choices. They often get reflected in the things we all do on occasion despite the fact someone, who supposedly knows better, tells us it is or is not the thing to do. I am not going to suggest we should ignore what other people tell us. In fact. You do listen, choose t do or ignore. Inevitably this is often a lot of trial & error in finding out your own ‘what to do’ compass. Each time something happens you will always ask yourself ‘why’ or ‘what does this have to do with music <or your version of that>? Sometimes you will scratch your head and wonder, sometimes you will scream in frustration and sometimes, well, it turns out okay.

The one thing I know for sure? The inner voice develops over time. Along the way you hope to avoid looking like an idiot but <I hate to break the news to you> you will look like an idiot at some point.

At some point in childhood, in your working years, heck, as a parent — you will look like an idiot. Why? Because Life doesn’t come with a ‘how to’ manual. You learn ‘how to’ live life by doing and watching and listening <and being an idiot>.

Sure. At some point your inner voice matures but until then? You will do something at some point that will make you look like an idiot.

Sometimes part of your idiocy is driven by what most people call ‘your passion.’ While every job, every career, every person has its challenges and issues a lot of peple forge their way thru this obstacle course focused on “what is my passion.”

Well. The grass may look greener but even your passion comes with some issues. Yes. Even following your passion is work at some point. That doesn’t mean you don’t love it and aren’t happy you chose doing it, but everything and anything can become a grind. No one really tells you that when discussing ‘follow your passion.’

Lastly.

Confidence in self. Whew. People with confidence can seem so intimidating in their, well, confidence. It is a suit of armor that protects them from the rest of us ‘less confident’ people. But here’s the deal. Confidence doesn’t equal knowledge or skill or ability.

Simplistically, all confidence equals is confidence. It is simply an attitude <albeit it sometimes appears as a skill>. Until actions match attitude all you gots is a whole bunch of attitude. To be clear. Hollow confidence is hollow and will not get you shit or anywhere except in the shit and nowhere.

It seems un-american these days to suggest that confidence isn’t the key to success. But here is a Life thought to ponder … maybe it is simply being a little less insecure that can insure some success — not having more confidence.

Having less of something means getting more of something else? <sometimes a good Life formula>

Sure. Someone could probably argue that is confidence but I would suggest it is simply being lessening some weight slowing you down and rather than adding something that can pull you forward <but possibly is an additional burden>.

But, hey … that sounds a lot of some Law of Gravity or something like that and what the heck does that have to do with Life? Everything.

You don’t have to be the best. You don’t have to be the most confident. You don’t have to be perfect. All you have to be is your best version of you.

The world is indifferent to you. To anyone in fact. It chugs along doing what it does and forces you to jump on the roller coaster and hold on or forces you to decide to create your own experience.

Second.

That means you cannot be indifferent to the indifferent world or you will never make a difference (big, medium or small). More likely you will just get steamrolled by indifferent Life.

Third.

Not being indifferent means you have to pay attention. This is where it gets tricky. It gets tricky because Life squeezes you between events & people. Events happen and you have to keep your head on a swivel to not only see what is happening but try and get a sense of what is coming. People are, well, people. You actually don’t have to keep your head on a swivel because it is more like people just bounce off of you whether you like it or. Even worse? Someone you don’t even know who has made some decision in some place you weren’t even invited to is most likely creating something you need to be paying attention for.

Fourth.

So now we get to people. You can’t be completely indifferent to people, but you also can’t always let people make a difference on you. In Life we learn this lesson fairly early on <as soon as we walk into a grade school>. In business we get blindsided. We get blindsided because you think a lot of the school bullshit will not happen in the business world.

I could write a book on this topic but suffice it to say my message to the good people, the ones who want to play fair, maintain integrity and conduct business with dignity:

Someone will always find something nefarious in what you are doing.

Yeah. This sucks.

I will not call this conspiracy thinking but, in general, a business culture more often than not breeds a sense that <a> everyone is out for themselves and <b> there is no such thing as a truly altruistic business motivation. And while it would be naïve of me to suggest that avoiding those two thoughts as ‘stupid & untrue’ it is a little sad that those beliefs pretty much underlie every organization.

Please note, once again, the people aspect in everything I have noted. You may want to avoid things but you will find your destiny along the path you have chosen strewn with a shitload of people crossing your path uninvited and many unwelcome.

I say that because that is your career.

So let me suggest something <maybe a little contrarian>.

I would suggest that Life is best lived by not ignoring shit and avoiding shit but rather stepping into the world an deal with it. Sometimes that may mean side stepping some of the shit you don’t want to deal with and sometimes that may mean bludgeoning your way over and through some of the shit you don’t want to deal with but if you do this you actually have some control over your own destiny. I say that because the problem with trying to maintain your Life on a parallel track, and knowing that inevitably it will be crossed by people & shit you had been purposefully avoiding, is that you will always be reacting to the bullshit rather than proactively facing it.

Look.

While you may not care about business or business politics my point is my point you cannot avoid the world to conduct yourself in the ways & means you want to conduct yourself. You are stuck with the world, and in the world, whether you like it or not.

Oh.

The other thing you are stuck with is the fact whether you stay on your road of ‘how I’m gonna do things right’ engaged with the world or take another road to try and avoid the world you don’t like, well, you will meet your destiny.

The world is indifferent to the road you choose. So you should probably choose to not be indifferent and at least choose the road you want to be on rather than be stuck on one not of your choosing.

the bigger the world economy, the more powerful will be the smaller players. This is because they are more flexible, faster and more economical – not burdened by layers of bureaucracy. Computers and telecommunications, now affordable to small companies, allow them to compete globally, and deregulation and globalization of financial markets gives them access to capital. Computer-driven technology also makes it possible to produce small runs of customized “higher value-added” products aimed at niche markets. Products produced “just in time” save money on inventory, and they can be quickly improved to compete with rapidly changing technology and tastes. Big companies will break up into confederations of small, entrepreneurial units. Small interacting firms will form themselves into temporary mosaics to be more adaptive and productive.

Alvin Toffler

===========================

In June 2013 I wrote an incredibly long piece called “inside out leadership” which shared a number of thoughts about the Future of Work. My belief was that after a misguided unhealthy focus on “the customer is king/queen” businesses would refocus their efforts on their “inside” <values, mission, culture, beliefs> in order to not only engage with right customers but also to create their value.

This portion, reprised, focuses on autonomy, distributed leadership and what I was calling ‘agile companies’ back in 2013.

Leadership in the future will be defined by the inside aspect of their businesses not just in producing things but rather knowledge capital, the values surrounding that knowledge application which create the character/personality value, and how it is all managed. Ah. Managed. Maybe better said getting an organization to collectively think in a common direction so that the individuals can be empowered to produce, think & do effectively.

This means organizational leadership will be defined by the ability to not respond to the consumer but rather respond, and adapt, to the organizational inputs & needs <boy, there is a paradigm shift>.

Oddly, this means organizational “power”, in general, will depend on taking advantage of the inevitable cracks in the process created by speed <agility> — not seamless surges forward.

To be clear. Agility will create cracks. The cracks created by the events that were not pre-programmed or foreseen.

I imagine this means true leadership partially depends partially on chance <finding the opportunities to lead within the moment> and managing human behavior in a desired fashion. This doesn’t mean everything is accidental. Not everything is random. In fact power is found within predictability as well as randomness. Organizational Power implies combining chance, necessity, continuity, chaos and order.

To me this means the new inside out leaders will have more of an opportunity to create the necessary attitudinal shift in business world than in recent years. Smaller organizations are easier to create attitudinal and behavioral direction than larger organizations which means creating lots of smaller pieces and parts coalescing in a common direction can affect a larger cultural shift in larger organizations. Conceptually, these different smaller business “teams” will shift traditional power away from manager-bureaucrats forcing the creation of a new type of leader.

That said. I believe organizational morality <or value beyond profit> will become the leadership cornerstone within an organization. While morality and virtue are developed over time <via repeated decisions to choose what is right and to forego what is wrong> which typically means there is no quick fix to any organizational morality problems … lots of smaller pieces can be redirected in the here and now.

Today’s’ inside out leader faces a variety of challenges. I will speak to what I consider the two biggest:

– Embracing fragmented knowledge while empowering it through organizational ‘tribes’

There are two portions to this challenge – contradictory but compatible.

Individualism empowered by access to knowledge and organizational tribes embedded within organizations.

First.

Tribes. I didn’t coin this term and in fact Toffler may have used it in 1990 <Godin certainly has>. I have mixed feeling with the term. It exhibits a stronger cultural aspect than simply suggesting the younger generation of employees cluster into groups of likeminded people but it also doesn’t not encourage thoughts of openness/porous/shifting teams.

What I do like is it embraces the communal aspect of being comfortable in ‘tribes’ within a larger organization <organizations are made up of a number of tribes>. Not unlike the Iroquois nation there are various tribes co-existing under a common charter. Each with separate cultural nuances and rituals but clearly aligned on a bigger purpose.

I began there because today’s leader grew up under the ‘dog eat dog’, ‘big fish eat little fish’ and ‘kill or be killed’ every person for themselves organizational upward movement mentality.

Remember I shared these Toffler words earlier in the post:

“Big companies will break up into confederations of small, entrepreneurial units. Small interacting firms will form themselves into temporary mosaics to be more adaptive and productive.”

I would note Toffler didn’t recognize the cultural shift <more of a community/tribal character> but rather focused solely on the power shift <knowledge wealth>. That said. As the two connect <a cultural shift and a business power shift> the words he shared become even more powerful … and meaningful to a new inside out leader.

These smaller units are tribes within an organization <call them a ‘small team’ if you dislike tribe>.

Each with its own ‘power’ to be managed by a leader savvy enough to move pieces seamlessly and have the ability to empower disparate thoughts, and tribes, into an aligned organization. The new inside out leader will need to recognize the balance between managing individuals and managing teams <with tribal cultures>. Neither a one-size-fit –all mentality or a one-by-one management mentality will work and be successful. It will be about empowering tribe without having tribal war and permitting the natural team leaders to arise from the culture.

Second.

Fragmented knowledge <individualized empowerment through knowledge> A truth. Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. The truly revolutionary aspect of knowledge wealth, and the internet, is that it can be grasped by weak & poor as well as strong & wealthy which makes it a continuing threat to the powerful, even as they try and use it to enhance their own power.

Toffler said this:

Bureaucracy is also a ways of groupings “facts”. A firm neatly cut into department according to function, market, region, or products is after all a collection of cubbyholes in which specialized information and personal experience are stored. The vaunted “rationality” of bureaucracy goes out the window. Power, always a factor, now replaces reason as the basis for decision. The power structure based on control of information was clear, therefore: While specialists controlled the cubbyholes, managers controlled the channels.”

Reading this also explains why every leader in a hierarchy is tempted <if not actually desirable of> to control the quantity, quality, and distribution of knowledge within his or her domain.

The internet has created a power shift by taking it from solely under those with legal or formal position and towards those with the ability to absorb & use knowledge.

It became a command/control leader’s headache that knowledge could slink into any office space and anyone smart enough to use it could become smarter than the person they reported to. It is easy to see that this organization fragmentation driven by real/actual knowledge could easily become chaos unless leaders begin showcasing a different ability than maybe we have valued up until today.

This means today’s leaders need to be assimilators of fragments.

They need to encourage empowered individuals and tribes to accumulate knowledge and then redirecting or gathering disparate pieces of knowledge into new forms in which the organizations, and ultimately, the tribes benefit from. The control of knowledge is the crux of an organization’s struggle for power, and more importantly, effectiveness. It is also then a leader’s biggest challenge in tomorrow’s businesses.

Compounding the issue is that the hyper speed in today’s world is making facts obsolete faster.

Therefore knowledge built upon certain facts becomes less durable. This has 2 key impacts:

– truth is fleeting <and decision making has small windows of opportunity>

– business has become more abstract <as knowledge streams non stop into and within an organization>.

Which now leads me to discuss speed.

inside out leader:Discerning between desire for speed and need for speed

Economics is now all accelerated <even if it isn’t really … we incessantly talk about it as if it is>. And all this accelerated pressure <speed> also shifts power by putting stress, and inevitably undermining, the fixed, bureaucratic chain of command.

Now <taking a step back>.

While everyone talks about a faster world today I would like to point out business has always had a love affair with speed. I would like to remind everyone that the second phase of the industrial revolution was focused on breaking apart production processes <and behavior associated> into the smallest portions with the intent to isolate and shrinking time to the most efficient pace possible.

I point that out because we have always desired speed. But we do not necessarily NEED speed. Speed is not only an addictive objective but an elusive one … the more you get the more you want.

I believe the new inside out leader will learn how to slow organizations down. They will need to be able to discern the difference between desire and need.

I don’t mean make them slow … but rather simply slow them down.

There are a variety of ways to do so but I would suggest the best, and easiest, is to embed the core purpose or vision of the organization within each employee.

Organizations will slow to think, and assess, only to speed up even faster. Only leaders can empower organizations to do this.

In conclusion.

Therefore this will be a new kind of leader stressing the central importance of character and virtue in a culture … focusing everyone on the basics … decency, doing the right thing, cooperation and that actions always have long-term consequences and doing it all as possible.

This changes decision-making from “if it makes money it is good” to “how does this fit within our purpose/direction?” will inevitably lead to smarter decisions and sometimes even adapted decisions <on the ground> all meeting a common purpose. It slows down the organization to think slightly but less so over time as ‘right thing’ becomes more & more obvious organizationally.

Outside in kind of worked because it not only generated money/revenue but in general a happier consumer who felt important <who doesn’t like that?>. But it also worked because this knowledge power created a newer faster ‘responder’ organization which permitted leaders to be lazier. They could build careers based only on responding and not foresight & consistency and makes gobs of money.

But.

“If its profitable do it” mentality is not an effective business management style because it doesn’t breed the organizational cohesiveness to balance against the individual freedom.

Conversely, “If it feels good do it” mentality is not an effective business management style unless grounded in some character/virtue.

Inside out leadership organizations will encourage individuality and individual freedom in the business decision making because it will also encourage individuals grounded in a vision based on character, virtue & organizational integrity.

I put these two quotes together on purpose which makes me say … who would have thought you could hear such an insightful thought from both ends of the spectrum – a woman who many believe ran our country for a period of time (if not absolutely influential on a variety of national programs) and a woman with amazing creative talent who dragged herself down into the depths of insecurity and loneliness?

And, yet, they both articulated the strength of “self.”

Ok. How about at least understanding that being true to yourself is the core to everything in life.

Now (part 1). True to yourself can actually be a tricky thing. It can be tricky because who you are today is NOT who you were yesterday. You learn, experience things, unlearn and while you may be grounded in integrity the trappings of you will shift & adapt.

Now (part 2). Life will do everything in its power to convince you that you have no clue what is ‘true to yourself.’

Society will do everything in its power to convince you that you not only have no clue what is ‘true to yourself’ but, also, if you have found your ‘true compass’ that your compass is pointed in the wrong direction.

Here is what I know.

I have learned, and know, you have to encourage people (and myself) to not let others drag you down.

I have learned, and know, your true compass doesn’t have to be defined in some words or be able to be described to people it just, well, points in the right direction.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t listen to others and accept constructive criticism but, in the end, you are you. You aren’t inferior unless you believe it to be so. You aren’t superior to anyone & anything. You listen and look at your compass.

It sounds simple. And it is simple. But incredibly difficult to do.

You can adapt. All people do. That’s what experiencing Life is all about. But don’t ignore North on your compass. The moment you decide to go east, west, even northwest … you have began compromising who and what you are. Stay pointed North.

“It didn’t work,” said the King. “The cloak of invisibility didn’t work.”“Yes, it did,” said the Royal Wizard.“No, it didn’t,” said the King. “I kept bumping into things, the same as ever.”“The cloak is supposed to make you invisible,” said the Royal Wizard. “It is not supposed to keep you from bumping into things.”“All I know is, I kept bumping into things,” said the King.”

—

James Thurber

============

So.

While this is about business in general it certainly taps into entrepreneurs & entrepreneurial attitudes and what happens once a business transitions from startup to ‘gravitas.’

Unreasonableness is very often a matter of perspective. In addition. being unreasonable is often not being some innovative disruptor but rather someone who prioritizes progress over, well, everything else.

Regardless. My favorite unreasonable example on this has to do with successful entrepreneurs. Unreasonable is status quo for becoming successful, yet, once successful, the people around the entrepreneur owner will most likely see the unreasonable as unreasonably risky (this creates some tension). In this situation the biggest issue is often the entrepreneur is comfortable doing things which may appear to have never done before, but once a business is up and running the team tends to seek things that have been done in the past <or “proven practices & things” from the past> to develop action plans. In this situation I am usually the jerk who says “most business success, in general, typically has a layer of idiosyncrasy <and context> that begs the ultimate question – can it really be copied?”

(I usually answer my own question: no)

Look. Here is a thought <to be applied with business book learning before you run off implementing everything you read> … as Henry Kissinger pointed out when discussing learning from history … “if you are seeking examples and exact parallelisms by studying history you will be disappointed. The study of history is the study of analogies.” However, all that said, I actually found an interesting business book. There is a relatively short book called ‘The Art of being Unreasonable” from a guy named Eli Broad.

I liked it for 4 reasons.

1. It was pretty short – I love it.

2. He suggests that rather than be a pioneer it is often better to be second with a new idea. – I love it.

3. He suggests that the best diversification may not be into an industry related to your own. – I love it.

4. The premise of the entire book is that the world has always been shaped by unreasonable people <ultimately they are the ones who force change>. – I love it.

The book did get me thinking and some thoughts which relate to the art of being unreasonable.

Business people often confuse safe with smart.

Safe may not be smart … because it is … well … just safe. Typically safe means less return <combined with less risk of course>. In fact it often translates into less return than the initial idea because it is … well … simply an extension of what is <smaller increments of growth>.

That (in simplistic terms) doesn’t mean bad return but rather diminishing return. Because it is, well, safe <okay … you get the point about safe>. Safe is hedging your bets. It is a sound strategy depending on what you would like to achieve. And it is a reasonable thing to do.

The book’s point is that isn’t what an entrepreneur <or business builders in general> is all about – being reasonable. They simply get convinced to do so by those around after their initial unreasonable-driven success (or sometimes they simply fear losing that has been gained).

Here is a silly thought. Maybe an unreasonable thought.

Entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs. To ask them to be anything other than what they are is fraught with peril.

As Broad points out there is a safe path (extension into a related industry) or a comfortable path (one that is an extension of him). By the way I love the distinction between safe and comfortable in this sense because to some people <me could be included here> safe can make some leaders uncomfortable, conversely, some leaders are quite comfortable with risk.

Now. I am not as smart as Eli.

But I have coached several businesses in a similar fashion. It makes them uncomfortable (the leader group) and excites the one (the leader). I often find myself negotiating between the desires of the organization formed behind the success of the leader/entrepreneur … and the entrepreneur themself.

It is an odd experience.

I would say in my experience that the entrepreneur gets dragged down into the dismal depths of the “reasonable” decision making organization. The main argument is businesses inherently desire to protect their success once they have shifted beyond the intial building. Now. I also admit I often walk away shaking my head in disappointment as the one who “built” defers to those who “protect” an investment under the guise of a “mature business people.”

What many business people don’t recognize is that building & protecting are different skills. Or, actually, they probably do but inevitably decisions need to be made that become a battle between comfortable and uncomfortable … and the seemingly reasonable and the unreasonable.

Last thought.I am not suggesting the unreasonable is always the path to walk because sometimes the unreasonable is really unreasonable <undoable, impractical, insane>.

However, there is an art to being unreasonable. An art that can lead to stunning success if it is fostered properly and encouraged <even if it is uncomfortable>.

The point?

Never totally disregard the unreasonable option & idea. It may not feel safe nor may it feel comfortable, but it may actually be one or both when viewed correctly.

But there is one thing I’ve learned, and that’s the hardest part of moving forward is not looking back.”

Felicity

=====

Progress is difficult <and easy>. Changing is even more difficult <and easy>. Now. I am not sure if it is more difficult if you discuss this as ‘one’ <an individual> or as a ‘whole’ <groups, countries, society>.

Well, to me, the reason why I kept on throwing in easy is because I believe we look at “difficult” incorrectly.

Maybe difficulty is simply difficulty.

Maybe there are no ‘degrees of difficulty’ when it comes to change.

Maybe there is no ‘little or big’ change.

Maybe it is simply, well, change … no size … no degrees … and it is all difficult.

One size – same degree of difficulty.

In fact. Maybe I should be arguing we diminish, or boost the whole concept of difficulty by trying to find levels within it. And maybe a philosophical young student Tv character <Felicity> simplified change and progress and difficulty into the simplest form — not looking back. In other words, change difficulty is all about the past and not looking back. Therein lies the hardest part or the “difficult” as it were with change – looking forward & just doing and not looking back at what you may, or may not be, leaving behind.

That said.

Individuals or societies, the ones or the manys, always seem to want to go back or look back <in some form or fashion>. It’s funny. We do this even if we know it isn’t the right thing or the best thing. We look at the past holding on to what exists with ragged tenacious claws.

Worse? We sometimes <often> delude ourselves into believing we are proceeding in the most rational way by weighing all of the pros and cons of various alternatives which are actually alternatives usually based on looking backwards <with an eye on a future thought>.

Oddly.

Quite often it really isn’t rational thinking because in the end most often the decision ends up no more than “I liked that more than I liked the other alternative.”

Oh. And that is scary. Because our attitude and perception with regard to the past is wacky.

Wacky not only because, all things created equal, we not only view the past differently than it really was <we tend to gloss over things> but also how we think and feel today <please note this is the first time I have mentioned anything to do with the present> influences how we remember yesterday. Yeah. Whatever we are feeling now and about ‘now’ is a filter in which the past has to sift its way thru. That matters because tomorrow’s anticipated gains and losses inspire today’s decisions and actions.

– Example one:

After being shown an ad talking about the wonders of Disneyland, including shaking hands with Bugs Bunny, people were asked about their own memories of visiting Disneyland. 16 percent vividly remembered shaking hands with Bugs Bunny, even though there’s no Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. (He’s a Warner Brothers character.)

– Example two <using some research>:

This is about what is called Time perspective. It’s not the actual real events of the past that most strongly influence our lives. It is actually our attitude toward events in the past matter more than the events themselves <ponder that one for a minute or two>.

Our time perspective — whether we tend to get stuck in the past, live only for the moment, or are enslaved by our ambitions for the future – effect our attitudes and behavior and decisions <lets call this ‘progress’>.

Stanford University psychology professor Philip Zimbardo created this idea of time perspective. After a boatload of research over a lot of time <10 years> he concluded our attitude toward time is just as defining as key personality traits such as optimism or sociability. He concluded time perspective influences many of our judgments, decisions, and actions. Zimbardo identified five key approaches to time perspective.

These are:

The ‘past-negative’ type. You focus on negative personal experiences that still have the power to upset you. This can lead to feelings of bitterness and regret.

The ‘past-positive’ type. You take a nostalgic view of the past, and stay in very close contact with your family. You tend to have happy relationships, but the downside is a cautious, “better safe than sorry” approach which may hold you back.

The ‘present-hedonistic’ type. You are dominated by pleasure-seeking impulses, and are reluctant to postpone feeling good for the sake of greater gain later. You are popular but tend to have a less healthy lifestyle and take more risks.

The ‘present-fatalistic’ type. You aren’t enjoying the present but feel trapped in it, unable to change the inevitability of the future. This sense of powerlessness can lead to anxiety, depression and risk-taking.

The ‘future-focused’ type. You are highly ambitious, focused on goals, and big on making ‘to do’ lists. You tend to feel a nagging sense of urgency that can create stress for yourself and those around you. Your investment in the future can come at the cost of close relationships and recreation time.

Anyway. All the research aside … here is an uncomfortable truth. Most of us are either focused on the past or the future. Or even both.

Here is the uncomfortable part.

That means if we are so preoccupied with past and future, well, that inevitably makes the present, well, smaller.

Yeah. The present becomes the smallest part of our attitudes which inevitably drives our behavior.

Unfortunately <or fortunately to any change consultant> change actually begins and ends with what you actually do in the present. Nothing else really matters when it come to change.

Yikes. That sure explains a lot.

Anyway.

The hardest part of moving forward is not looking back. Heck. Maybe the hardest part of moving forward is not only not looking back .but not looking forward too.

<note: my head hurts after typing that>

Change is, adn will always be, about flipping today to tomorrow. Easy, and as hard, as that.

I imagine that change will always be difficult and the only thing that may matter is to make the present a little bit bigger in how you think in the scheme of things. I say that because when you do flip the present, and what you do in the present, and tomorrow looks bigger & better you will most likely have no desire to look backwards anymore, less likely to hold with ragged claws to anything you used to do, and more likely to just have, well, changed … and it is all said and done.